So Augustine, Aquinas and King agree that we, as Christians and free people are not required to follow human laws that do not comply with the natural moral law
. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
That's well and good for the evil that men do, but what about the pointless things that men do. Both in terms of the laws of government like those dictating the use of butter substitutes in the dairy state and those edicts in our every day lives and offices such as, "all men on yhe second floor must poop in the basement even though there's a bathroom close by"?
Does the natural law, which has a lot to say about man's inherent dignity, override ones moral duties to follow laws and command which are, not wicked or unjust, but just either below ones dignity to follow, not a matter of gracious obedience or self-perfection, or just plain dumb?